Talk:23andMe

This
This article really, really reads like an ad.

To the precious poster who did not sign, I agree. I'm adding a tag to address this.TPREX (talk) 05:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this is ad-like. I note in particular that care is taken to avoid names of competing vendors, placing in context of existing and better established genetic tests, etc. 152.132.8.194 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It reads like an ad and does not mention other companies. Moreover, there's a lack of any criticism and objectivity on the usefulness of results given to clients. It has been shown that many deseases are not governed by an existing genetic predisposition but more by lifestyle, nutrition, exercises... In 2010, a blog of the scientific magazine Nature reported that 23andme had mixed up samples of 96 clients. (http://blogs.nature.com/news/2010/06/consumer_genomics_company_snaf_1.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.156.234 (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

My impression absolutely concurs with and reflects the comments previously mentioned, but I also have serious concerns about the absence of information pertaining the privacy implications of sharing genetic/medical information and how this data is currently being used (such as for "research" and who has access to it, as well as potential future information sharing and whether consumers will be notified about privacy policy changes, and whether the option to opt-out will be available and/or honored. Blk Mtn (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2017 (UTC)Blk Mtn

The 'Media' section is unusually large and does not contribute to the scope of the article to give facts on the company. I would shorten it to a single sentence that mentions that the company has been featured widely in the media linked to a few sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.108.156.234 (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Expansion
There have been a number of news articles about this company (and its competitors) relatively recently, which could be used as sources in an expansion of this article. I may do it myself later, but in case anyone gets to it before I do, here are some which may prove useful:


 * Reuters
 * Wired
 * New York Times another New York Times
 * San Francisco Chronicle
 * BusinessWeek

It's also all over various blogs, for those who wish more background, but those are of course generally not considered reliable sources.

Thanks, JavaTenor (talk) 22:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Name origin
I think it would be interesting to note the origin of the company's name, especially for non-native English speakers.

88.1.6.247 (talk) 13:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The Wired article referenced at the end of the entry says "The company's name is a reference to the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain our DNA." I'm guessing that they wanted the shortest possible (yet still intelligible) name based on that. Bricology (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine
Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article is already under has our tag, I have now reassessed it to make sure if is in the right WikiProject. Upon reassessment of the article, I'd like to make a few points, as shown below: Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. I'm glad this article could fall within our scope, and I hope to see it grow large! Many thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reassess article with class and importance factors
 * Reassessed tags for correct placements

Catalog of Medical Genetics Companies
This article begins with a mini-catalog of companies in the field. Maybe such a catalog would be more appropriate in the Medical genetics page. Genomas is another genetic medicine company to include in such a catalog. Page Notes (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Logo or something
Is it possible to get a logo (even low-res) to represent the article? 76.200.157.188 (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Last line, "However, critics warn..."
"However, critics warn in the scientific literature that health predictions are not currently effective enough to have any clinical utility.[11]" Regardless of the citation, I don't believe the line contributes anything to this article. It would be more relevant and appropriate to discuss opinions regarding health predictions elsewhere. To me, there doesn't appear to be a good reason for this line to be in this article and I think it should be deleted.Russell Dent (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would nuke that as well. --Threeafterthree (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources on the FDA communication to 23andMe
I thought it might be helpful to collect here a list of sources about 23andMe and its current communication with the FDA. I'll start with one here; feel free to add others by replies or edits to this talk page section.



-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Blaine Bettinger has included a list of articles on his website. Helen Online  04:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I found another one overnight.



-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another good source, which I'm surprised isn't already used in the article.

There are some good quotations from experts there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:57, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are some related commentaries on this, with the first being an annotated set of links.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)   19:38, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I Got Your 23andMe – FDA Food Fight Links Right Here
 * FDA Muzzles 23andMe After Talks Break Down
 * FDA’s Culture Is Mendelian Dominant Over 23andme’s Business Model

Sourcing guide for articles on medical topics
The problem with this article on Wikipedia for a long time is that it has been sourced from company press releases rather than from independent journalistic and scientific sources. For a company whose products and services are tied up with medical claims, as 23andMe's products and services undeniably are, it is important to source this article as much as possible according to the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medicine. There is a lot of discussion in the medical literature about how reliable gene tests are, to date, in identifying human disease risk, and I cite some of the current sources in a broader source list on genetics and human biology, which I share with all Wikipedians so that you can use the sources to verify articles. (You are also very welcome to suggest new sources for that source list. Medical sources, which I can check at a comprehensive biomedical library in my town, are especially welcomed as suggestions.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:41, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sloppy interpretation of sources
Several recent additions to the article have included sloppy interpretation of sources and lack of fact-checking (e.g. basing interpretation on the headline instead of the facts behind the story). Please be careful, especially when we are talking about legal issues. It is also worth reading and citing different sources to get the full story. Helen Online  09:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Here's another good source. I Had My DNA Picture Taken, With Varying Results -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not specific to 23andMe though (and anecdotal evidence). It may be useful for the more general articles on genetic testing to present views of people like Craig Venter. Helen  Online  07:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

23andme does not sell health assessments
I tried to correct the article, but someone reverted it. 23andme used to sell them, and may or may not do it in the future, but it does not do it now. It allows old customers to view previously bought info, but the article should not say that the company is selling assessments. Roger (talk) 18:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article only says 23andMe offers a DTC DNA testing service. I reverted your edit and repeated the suspension issue which was already covered in a later section because your edit ignored the fact that the vast majority of customers still have access to their health results and new customers may at some later stage. The wording may need some tweaking as long as it covers the facts. Helen  Online  19:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The article says: "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors". That is false. The company is not currently in the business of selling any health-related assessments. Roger (talk) 21:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Source? This kind of editing question is easily resolved by recommending some reliable, secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Just look at their home page. It says this, with a big exclamation point at the top: "23andMe provides ancestry-related genetic reports and uninterpreted raw genetic data. We no longer offer our health-related genetic reports." The WP article is written to describe that product that the company quit selling 7 months ago.  Roger (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Why are you only quoting part of the sentence here? The article now (after my edit mentioned in my initial reply above) says "Results are posted online, along with an assessment of inherited traits, genealogy, and possible congenital risk factors, although health-related results for customers who purchased the test from November 22, 2013 have been suspended while undergoing regulatory review." Helen  Online  07:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I copied the sources from the section below, so sources are not an issue. The sentence wording could probably be improved, as long as half the story is not removed which is what happened. Helen  Online  07:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I quoted the part that is false. No source says it. Roger (talk) 15:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We have not reached consensus and the only place edit warring will get you is blocked. Helen  Online  15:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Wikipedia does not reflect the sources cited, or that the sources themselves are incorrect? I fail to understand your rationale for removing this information.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  18:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * All of the sources say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. I edited the WP article to reflect that fact. Roger (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * and, likes the sources but feels they were not presented correctly on Wikipedia. The sources actually say that 23andme does not sell health-related assessments. Do you agree that the sources say this? Do you agree that Schlafly's edits reflect the sources?   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  21:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the statement that would reflect current reality in article text (I am basing this mostly on what Helen said) is that 23andMe is not currently marketing health-related assessments, but still allows access to information from the tissue samples for previous customers. I am not a customer, but it does look to me from the published sources like 23andMe ceased an earlier practice without completely closing up shop. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That section of the article does not use the word "sell" or mention offering health analysis per se. Later on in another section the article says: "As of December 5, 2013, 23andMe is only selling raw genetic data and ancestry-related results." Health results are still posted online for older customers (which was well-sourced). I was happy to work together towards an acceptable consensus wording incorporating all the facts (which were already in the article albeit not in that section) but Roger apparently was not. Helen  Online  08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I initiated the discussion on this page in order to improve the accuracy of the article. I changed "pending FDA approval" because we don't know what application might be pending. I qualified the Time award, because that was for the health results that are no longer offered. I added that signups have slowed as a result of the FDA orders. I welcome further improvements. Roger (talk) 12:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Initiating a discussion doesn't mean you can do whatever you want without consensus, and your new (and old) edits need sources. And no, I won't clean up your mess just so you can revert me. Helen  Online  12:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * - I am still not sure what is wrong with the content, other than references being removed. - You deleted citations to reliable sources, and I am not sure why. Since this content is being questioned I think that every sentence should have a citation after it. As Helen says, content without sources is generally considered worse than content with sources, and usually stands during discussion. How would you feel about re-adding or replacing the references you removed so that every sentence has a citation?   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  14:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from removing reliable sources, which I had added to support his first edit, it wiped out content about what the product initially included and still does for older customers. We had already covered the suspension of health analysis for new clients later in the article and I don't have a problem repeating it in the earlier section with sources, and tried without success to achieve a consensus wording. Helen  Online  14:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This article is not meant to be an advertisement and nobody should be buying the product based on one sentence in it (reading the whole article would make everything abundantly clear). Ignoring the health focus of this company, even if this changes permanently and irrevocably in future, would make it an extremely unbalanced article. Helen  Online  15:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It also removed context for the whole regulatory section. A better question might be to ask Roger why he insists on removing it. Helen  Online  15:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added the FDA references back in. The article does have the warning that it "appears to be written like an advertisement." It does not seem important or significant to me that the company continues to allow old customers to view the reports that they previously purchased and accessed, or that purchasers who did not get what they were promised were offered a refund. It might be news if the company failed to do these things. Companies change their product offerings all the time, and how they manage the transition is just not interesting. I doubt that an article about 23andme today would mention it. But go ahead and tell me if I am wrong. Roger (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That warning is not an invitation to make it more like an advertisement, quite the opposite. The company has to date been primarily focussed on health analysis and research, so not covering how that has worked in the past and continues to work for at least 500,000 customers makes no sense especially when we go on to discuss problems that arose with the regulators as a result of it. Helen  Online  16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, so that comparison is irrelevant. Helen  Online  17:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

In the absence of a response, I have restored balance to the article, and in the process expanded the product description. Please discuss here if necessary. Helen Online  13:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I see that you made about 50 edits. I agree with whoever said that the article reads like a company advertisement, so I have restored that warning at the top. In particular, I think that it is very misleading for the lead paragraph to brag about 23andme having an invention of the year, and not mention that the FDA has ordered that product discontinued. Roger (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have made a lot of changes since that tag was added, and you have addressed the lead. I would hate to think all that effort was in vain., as you added the tag initially do you agree that it is still necessary and if not what still needs to be changed? Helen  Online  07:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the article is much improved since the advert tag was added, so I wouldn't revert a removal of the tag given the current condition of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Paranoid Terms of Service
The Canadian web page for 23andMe features a 9,000 word Terms of Service crammed with legalisms. 'Nuff said. David F (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not publish original research, so this article cannot talk about that unless you find a published source which covers this issue. If you do find such a source, please share here so that this article can give this information.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  17:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge sections: Founding & Underwriting -> Company History
I think the underwriting facts can be trimmed and folded into a company overview. The initial funding by Google and others is worth mentioning, but the later additional offerings could be omitted. Timetraveler3.14 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have a Ph.D in finance but I have no idea what a series D and series E round is related to venture captial, if this is important it should probably be explained or otherwise omitted.

Information regarding the development of the technology and science of this product and its algorithms should be included. How does DNA from one's saliva provide enough DNA to sequence and guide interpretations? Who decided this should be the first commercially-available gene sequencing product like this, and why? Mp6180 (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Deserves tag about company being recently in the news...
.... if i'm not mistaken about there being an alert template for articles that should be updated to reflect specific recent news. "Large DNA study using 23andMe data finds 15 sites linked to depression" in Washington Post of ‎Aug 1, 2016 ("Scientists announced on Monday that they had pinpointed [, using-23andme-data,] 15 locations in our DNA that are associated with depression, one of the most common mental health conditions and one that is estimated to cost the world billions in health-care costs and lost ..."). --Jerzy•t 10:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

lawsuit content
in general having content about people filing lawsuits is WP:NOTNEWS WP:CRYSTALBALL stuff, often (not always, and making no judgements here) driven by people connected to the suits financially or emotionally.

Its best to wait until there is some significant action - like a class being certified or a judgement. Many of these go no where. The content below is hyper-local, timewise.

On November 27, 2013, 23andMe customer Lisa Casey filed a class action lawsuit against 23andMe in the Southern California federal district court alleging misleading advertising of its PGS test "when there is no analytical or clinical validation for the PGS for its intended uses". Casey is suing for at least $5 million in damages, representing the aggregate of the $99 PGS test purchase price paid by thousands of customers the plaintiff believes to be in the class.
 * Class action lawsuits

On December 19, 2013, another class action lawsuit was filed against 23andMe alleging misleading advertising by Tara Stefani and Tanya Vullanueva in the Massachusetts federal district court.

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Amount of Health information for customers in different regions (USA, EU = most European countries, ....)?
So if a customer in EU orders the 23andme test NOW (December 2017), is the amount of health information same as a customer ordering in India or any random country?

ee1518 (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

results of 23andme research
I've now twice removed content touting their science. Both times the refs ( and )were primary sources per WP:MEDDEF. The first time this was added, there were no results stated and this was (in my view) borderline OK... but it is still grabbing a primary source and talking about it, which is not what we do here. We summarize secondary sources, not "report" on primary sources. The second time it was added was worse as it stated the results.

If some good quality secondary WP:RS source actually reports on the fact that they are publishing science, that is noteworthy and fine to discuss. For the results of their science, that should be sourced to a secondary source per WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources template
removed the issues with primary sources and improved the article quite well, so I'm taking down the template that I added. R9tgokunks  ✡  00:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Press releases and copyvio
User:R9tgokunks In this diff you restored: a) an image that is copyvio (check ) and b) content based on a press release, which is company marketing. WP articles as you know should be driven by independent sources; a whole section built from press releases is no longer a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 00:54, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand that. I'm the one who put the primary sources template on the top of the page. I had a source in mind that I was going to add but you swiftly reverted anyway, so i'll get back to it later. R9tgokunks   ✡  01:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

10 million users now
23&me now has 10 million users. I do not know how to cite sources, but this is indeed true. It can be easily found out with some basic research. I even have proof from them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.39.251 (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

[| This article] is pretty interesting to answer your question. It's written by 23andme engineers and it shows how they run imputation on 1 million people per day! And there's plots spanning over ten days. So definitely more than ten million. And the source is - in an indirect way - actually the company itself, at least the engineering department Yinwang888 (talk) 07:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Company name
Is the companies name "23andMe Holding Co." Or "23andMe, Inc."? Stock records show it using the suffix "Co." While the website and crunchbase show it using the suffix "Inc." WiinterU (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @WiinterU 23andMe Holding Co. was formed when 23andMe, Inc. merged with the special purpose acquisition company VG Acquisition Corp. 23andMe Holding Co. is the merged entity while 23andMe, Inc. is its subsidiary. This is detailed in the annual report (after the table of contents). Ptrnext (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, why isn't 23andMe, Inc. listed as a subsidiary of this company? WiinterU (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The SPAC is not a real company. Effectively the holding company and 23andMe, Inc. are the same; just structured in levels due to the SPAC merger. We don't need to list it as a subsidiary. Ptrnext (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

v5 is still the latest chip
https://customercare.23andme.com/hc/en-us/articles/218392668-Upgrading-to-23andMe-s-Newest-Chip-Version

" 23andMe Health Reports by Chip Version V1 V2 V3 V4A V4 V5 "

93.106.5.243 (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how recent new feature this is, as of 26th May 2024 they claim they just launched this:

https://www.23andme.com/

"JUST LAUNCHED for 23andMe+ Premium: three new cancer reports Powered by 23andMe Research.

Everything in Health +plus Ancestry Service, plus: "
 * 30+ Powered by 23andMe Research reports including heart health, anxiety and skin cancerMore info
 * JUST ADDED Breast Cancer (females only), Prostate Cancer (males only) and Colorectal Cancer (certain ethnicities) - all Powered by 23andMe Research
 * *Pharmacogenetics* reports Learn about Considerations and Limitations for Pharmacogenetics Reports
 * Health Action Plan featureMore info
 * Health Tracks featureSMMore info
 * JUST ADDED Historical MatchesSM feature
 * Plus new reports and features as more discoveries are made

And then they have this very expensive feature which is NOT available for existing customers, and ONLY available for people living in United States:

"23andMe plus Total Health™ DETECTS 200X MORE DISEASE-CAUSING VARIANTS‡MORE INFO Our most advanced health membership including next-generation sequencing.ΔLearn about Important Information for Total health $999/first yr. NOT currently available to existing 23andMe customers."

https://www.23andme.com/total-health/

"To be eligible for 23andMe+plus Total Health, you must be 18 years or older and live in the US"

93.106.5.243 (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2024 (UTC)